Roche\u27, Carole N.

English

University of Baltimore School of Law

University of Baltimore Law ForumVolume 26Number 3 Summer 1996 Article 61996Recent Developments: Attorney GrievanceComm'n v. Drew: Workaholism Rejected as aMitigating Factor in Attorney DisciplinaryProceedingsCarole N. Roche'Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lfPart of the Law CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion inUniversity of Baltimore Law Forum by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, pleasecontact snolan@ubalt.edu.Recommended CitationRoche', Carole N. (1996) "Recent Developments: Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Drew: Workaholism Rejected as a Mitigating Factorin Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 26 : No. 3 , Article 6.Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol26/iss3/6Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Drew: WORKAHOLISM REJECTED AS A MITIGATING FACTOR IN ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS The Court of Appeals of Maryland, in Attorney Grievance Comm 'n v. Drew, 341 Md. 139, 669 A.2d 1344 (1996), rejected workaholism as a mitigating factor in attor-ney disciplinary proceedings. In so holding, the court of ap-peals rej ected the analogy drawn between workaholism and oth-er mitigating factors, such as alcoholism and drug addiction. Attorney Alan C. Drew ("Drew") was admitted to prac-tice law in the State of Mary-land on June 16, 1976. Drew's law practice focused primarily on bankruptcy and criminal cas-es. In an effort to assist his bankruptcy clients in making timely payments to creditors, Drew organized an office pro-cedure whereby his clients would make their payments di-rectly to his office. In tum, Drew forwarded disbursements on behalf of his clients to vari-ous creditors. Prior to 1989, Drew received a warning from the Attorney Grievance Com-mission of Maryland because of his failure to properly man-age his escrow account and dis-bursement procedures. During 1989, as a result of Drew's continued failure to properly monitor and reconcile his es-crow account, one of his cli-ents, Dena Spain ("Spain"), lost her home in a foreclosure pro-ceeding. Subsequently, Spain filed a grievance against Drew with the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland (the "Commission"). The investi-gation of Drew's escrow ac-count revealed many serious concerns, including an absence of recordkeeping, as well as twenty-three bank charges for overdrafts and insufficient funds. The Commission then filed a Petition for Disciplinary Action against Drew in the Court of Appeals of Maryland. The court referred the case to the Honorable Marjorie L. Clagett of the Circuit Court for Calvert County for an evidentiary hearing. Drew offered testimony that his mis-management of the escrow ac-count was the result of his workaholism and excessive re-liance on his staff. After find-ing violations of Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.15, and 5.3 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, Judge Clagett failed to find that Drew violated Maryland Rule BU9 and Maryland Rule of Pro-fessional Conduct 8.4(c) and Cd). The Bar Counsel ex-cepted to Judge Clagett's hold-ing. Drew, 341 Md. at 149,669 A.2d at 1348. In applying the clearly erroneous standard of review, the Court of Appeals denied Bar Counsel's excep-tion as to Maryland Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, but sustained the exception as to Rule BU9. Id.atI49,669A.2d at 1349. In pertinent part, Mary-land Rule BU9 provides that "[a]n attorney or law firm may not borrow or pledge any funds required by these Rules to be deposited in an attorney trust account .... " Id. At the outset of its anal-_______________________ 26.3 / U. Bait. L.F. - 35 that it never considered "an at-torney's decision to take on more work than the attorney could properly handle . . . a mitigating factor." ld. The court held that the lower court's finding that Drew's misappro-priation of funds was not inten-tional was of no consequence in light ofthe unqualified prohibi-tion contained in Rule BU9. ld. In determining the ap-propriate sanction for Drew's departure from the Rules of Pro-fessional Conduct, the court of appeals prefaced its review of prior holdings by recognizing the gravity of Drew's actions. ld. at 150, 669 A.2d at 1349. The court explained that '''the misappropriation by an attor-ney of funds of others entrusted to his care, be the amount small or large ... represents the grav-est form of professional mis-conduct. ", ld. (citing Bar Ass 'n v. Marshall, 269 Md. 510, 519, 307 A.2d 677,682 (1973) and 36 - U. Bait. L.F./26.3 Attorney Grievance Comm 'n v. McBurney, 283 Md. 628, 631,392 A.2d 81, 82 (1978)). The court of appeals then reviewed the sanctions imposed in cases of intentional, as well as unintentional, misap-propriation of funds and held that Drew's violation was the result of an unintentional mis-appropriation of funds. ld. at 150-54, 669 A.2d at 1349-51. The court of appeals indefinite-ly suspended Drew and held that Drew may not be permitted to apply for reinstatement for a period of one year. ld. at 154, 669 A.2d at 1351. In Attorney Grievance Comm 'n v. Drew, the Court of Appeals of Maryland categori-cally denied that workaholism is the equivalent of alcoholism or drug addiction as a mitigat-ing factor in attorney disciplin-ary proceedings. The Drew decision reinforces the funda-mental obligation of every at-torney to properly bud-get time and resources to serve the best interests of each client. In so holding, the court sends a clear message to attorneys that the Rules of Professional Con-duct will not be relaxed in any way when workaholism is ad-vanced as the sole mitigating factor in a disciplinary proceed-ing. - Carole N. Roche' 

Recent Developments: Attorney Grievance Comm\u27n v. Drew: Workaholism Rejected as a Mitigating Factor in Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings

https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1827&amp;context=lf

Recent Developments: Attorney Grievance Comm\u27n v. Drew: Workaholism Rejected as a Mitigating Factor in Attorney Disciplinary Proceedings

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Baltimore School of Law